The myth of the standing arm break...

[WinterPalm]

You don't fully understand Dawkins.

Because I disagree?
I have spent a good time studying genetics from a historical perspective and a current up to date journal perspective...this is including evolutionary theories from across the spectrum including divine purpose, law of physics purposes, and natural selection, even including abstract purpose of genetic variation and development.
Sensationalistic writing and tv programming do kill most valid science in the eyes of the public because the actual studies represent very different and often skeptical perspectives that would not sell books.

In the selfish gene, of which I have only read his intro where he outlines his major theories and line of thinking, all I have seen is that he is outlining a psycho-biological affinity that carries over to socio-cultural expressions and determinants in terms of human behaviour and driving forces behind action and reaction. It is irresponsible to suggest that the purpose of variation, genetic change, and natural selection is to benefit the individual...this argument was done away with early last century...if a mutation does not benefit the individual in a way that benefits the group, the species will die out, and every species exists to an extent to reproduce and carry on the life of the species.

The individual is only really given a full appreciation under cultural ideologies and those vary across the span of the human species from idol worship of individuals, to selfless agrandizment and group mentalities where individual benefit is abhorred and social custom dictates the social good.

Thus, I see Dawkins very much wrapped up and clouded by a cultural ideology that he is using to benefit his argument and skew his science. Without a doubt, biology plays a part in human cultural expression and diversity, but it does not determine nor does it dictate those expressions and ways of life.

That said, I will be reading the full book.

Please tell me how I do not understand what he is saying and possibly fill in what I may have left out.

[hung-le]

Because I disagree?
I have spent a good time studying genetics from a historical perspective and a current up to date journal perspective...this is including evolutionary theories from across the spectrum including divine purpose, law of physics purposes, and natural selection, even including abstract purpose of genetic variation and development.
Sensationalistic writing and tv programming do kill most valid science in the eyes of the public because the actual studies represent very different and often skeptical perspectives that would not sell books.

In the selfish gene, of which I have only read his intro where he outlines his major theories and line of thinking, all I have seen is that he is outlining a psycho-biological affinity that carries over to socio-cultural expressions and determinants in terms of human behaviour and driving forces behind action and reaction. It is irresponsible to suggest that the purpose of variation, genetic change, and natural selection is to benefit the individual...this argument was done away with early last century...if a mutation does not benefit the individual in a way that benefits the group, the species will die out, and every species exists to an extent to reproduce and carry on the life of the species.

The individual is only really given a full appreciation under cultural ideologies and those vary across the span of the human species from idol worship of individuals, to selfless agrandizment and group mentalities where individual benefit is abhorred and social custom dictates the social good.

Thus, I see Dawkins very much wrapped up and clouded by a cultural ideology that he is using to benefit his argument and skew his science. Without a doubt, biology plays a part in human cultural expression and diversity, but it does not determine nor does it dictate those expressions and ways of life.

That said, I will be reading the full book.

Please tell me how I do not understand what he is saying and possibly fill in what I may have left out.

ohhhhh MY GOD!!

Now this is what I call a verbal backhand!

my eyeballs are stinging just reading this retort!

[Yum Cha]

Hey Knife,

Still on holidays, and popped in in a spare moment and found all these threads on standing arm breaks.

That story I told you about the standing arm break really got under your skin I can see. Must have really got you thinking to put so much effort into this latest flurry of threads.

Come on, you really want to believe, I can tell....give up the Mr Grumpy antics and come on over to the Yang and Yin side. Why be a groupie when you can be the real thing? With your training, you'd get good really quick, probably just a few years, training twice a day, 5 days a week like you do....

I'll one up it now, last year three of my guys defended themselves on the street.

One broke the guys arm, wrist and jaw, (the story I've related a couple of times) the other broke the guys knee, and the third broke ribs before a KO. All live action, on the street, in self defense. One ended up in court, the other two just left the scene before any reprecussions.

Gee, my work here is done. The sliver of doubt... You really want to believe I'm BS'ing, but you know I'm not.

For the record, as anybody who knows Pak Mei will confirm, we have a form that trains standing arm breaks: Saam Mun, 3 gates. But of course, training forms is worthless and weak, right?


BTW, Happy New Year guys. Health, wealth and happiness to ya'all!

[TAO YIN]

Shiot, I posted this on the wrong thread a while ago.

Don' forget, George St. Pierre, DID NOT kick Matt Hughes in the groin twice, and Krocop DID NOT pop Silva in the eye twice...



Extra, Extra, Read all about it...Extra, Extra, Read all about it...

-Joe, went to his local 18 hole golf course to take up golf. After talking with the Club Chump at the Pro Shop, Joe was very excited and remembered to take down everything the Club Chump had told him. After being screwed by The Chump for his new set of Ping Irons and Titleists, Joe went and bought some instructional videos, some gimmicks and gadgets, and the like...

Joe practiced and practiced, and played and played. On one spring day, he took a lesson from the Club Chump as they played a round. The Club Chump asked Joe, "Why do you want to learn golf so much?" Joe said, "Because I want to be a professional golfer." To which the Club Chump replied, "Oh, well, we have wasted so much time here then. I'll get you signed up for a pro am next week. You need to be competing." And to which Joe replied, "Man your good. I see why you are a club chump. Why aren't you playing on tour and beating Tiger???..."


-Man says to local community college baseball pitcher. "You got a good arm, why ain't you been recruited?"

-And as for the hustler at the bowling alley, the pool hall, and the swap meet...???


You decide??? Oh, oh that's right! Sport fighting is fighting, and fighting is instinctual and much less structurally complicated than all the above.


New MMA student, formerly a TCMA forms junkie, asks his Coach just before his first fight...

"Can I punch him in the eye?"

Coach says, "Yeah, try to work his eyes with your jabs."

Student replies, "But I can't finger strike him in the eye?"

Coach says, "No, it is impossible to finger strike someone in the eye. You can only punch someone in the eye."

Student replies, "But if I keep my hand open, and stick my fingers out and bend them a little like I always do during walking, and well, just most day to day activities, I've got more reach than if I just close my fist, right? And these gloves, they are giving me even more support!"

Coach says, "Punching someone in the eye is a gross motor movement, but finger striking someone in the eye is not. See, as you walk along during the day, you dont really notice it, but you are constantly clinching your fists."

After confusing the student for many many more minutes, especially about Matt Hughes getting kicked in the groin, out of no where a TCMA Sifu walks up and joins the conversation. He listens for a minute and says...

"MMA Coach I challenge you!"

MMA coach says, "Ok."

They fight for a good while and in the end...One got his finger and arm broke, the other one got his eye fuucked up, but neither of them went to fight Chuck. In the end of it all, as long as Tito Ortiz and Jenna Jameson make the Fighting Fuucker of the Universe....The world will find Utopia forever and there will be no more problems whatsoever. Speaking of which...

Did you ever hear about the man who thought he was good at sex? He couldn't make it in porn...Ha.

[Knifefighter]

Still on holidays, and popped in in a spare moment and found all these threads on standing arm breaks.

That story I told you about the standing arm break really got under your skin I can see. Must have really got you thinking to put so much effort into this latest flurry of threads.

Nope... wasn't you. I already know your stories are B.S.

The arm break thread was in response to the SJ thread where we got into it about "combat" throws.

[Wood Dragon]

Because I disagree?
I have spent a good time studying genetics from a historical perspective and a current up to date journal perspective...this is including evolutionary theories from across the spectrum including divine purpose, law of physics purposes, and natural selection, even including abstract purpose of genetic variation and development.
Sensationalistic writing and tv programming do kill most valid science in the eyes of the public because the actual studies represent very different and often skeptical perspectives that would not sell books.

In the selfish gene, of which I have only read his intro where he outlines his major theories and line of thinking, all I have seen is that he is outlining a psycho-biological affinity that carries over to socio-cultural expressions and determinants in terms of human behaviour and driving forces behind action and reaction. It is irresponsible to suggest that the purpose of variation, genetic change, and natural selection is to benefit the individual...this argument was done away with early last century...if a mutation does not benefit the individual in a way that benefits the group, the species will die out, and every species exists to an extent to reproduce and carry on the life of the species.

The individual is only really given a full appreciation under cultural ideologies and those vary across the span of the human species from idol worship of individuals, to selfless agrandizment and group mentalities where individual benefit is abhorred and social custom dictates the social good.

Thus, I see Dawkins very much wrapped up and clouded by a cultural ideology that he is using to benefit his argument and skew his science. Without a doubt, biology plays a part in human cultural expression and diversity, but it does not determine nor does it dictate those expressions and ways of life.

That said, I will be reading the full book.

Please tell me how I do not understand what he is saying and possibly fill in what I may have left out.

___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

[Shaolin Wookie]

Are we talking hyperextending joints, or actually breaking bones? CMA dudes often talk about "breaks", but it's a misnomer. It's simply hyperextending a joint. This is not that hard to do when dealing with infighting. Hell, you can do it by punching the air too hard or kicking too hard with too much extension. It takes considerable effort to actually push through a hyperextension to force a break, though--more than the usual "breaking" motion actually puts out--so I'm just looking to clear things up.

But as for actually breaking the forearm, etc....I'll agree that it's unlikely. Not impossible under very improbable conditions, but unlikely unless you're fighting a newbie.

But if you're talking about simple hyperextensions---it's not that hard, and it will keep someone from using that arm for quite a while.

[SifuAbel]

Shaolin wookie dropkicks the correct into a low earth orbit.

[Ford Prefect]

glad at least you used a modifier


http://video.google.com/googleplayer...98734503&hl=en

By the way, Aoki has sick takedowns and still jumps guard and jumps arm bar

It's funny how one video that is clearly included in KF's example makes people scream and yell. That wasn't a purposeful arm break. It was accidental when moving into a 2-on-1 to complete a throw.

If you have a video if a guy in a full contact match actually executing a technique which has a primary purpose of breaking an arm, then I'd be happy to see it. Until then, I agree with KF.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Any breaks that one can perform "on purpose" will be those that one can do while controlling the opponent on the ground, rather than when standing or throwing.

Do accidental breaks happen while controlling opponents on the ground? Yes. Do they negate the applicability of purposeful breaks? No. Does Kung-fu teach simple joint locks? Yes. If you continue some joint locks is it really that difficult to force a break? No. Can you apply the same locks on the ground? Yes. Does that make them more or less effective? No. Is Knifefighter losing this argument? Yes. Will he admit defeat and run to Unkosuckysucky5dolla! for comfort? No...(at least to the first half of that question....)

Most breaks are facilitated by using the body to get the correct force and leverage--and this often happens while grappling during infighting. If you can get your arm around someone elses with proper body position, you can break their arm. There's plenty of techniques--you just can't force them. When you see the opportunity, you can then exploit them. Surely you've heard of the figure 4? You call it accidental---nope...but it might not have been the original technique you went into the fight to exploit. If it's there, you can do it. As a consequence of this occuring during grappling, you can't aim to do this without some foreplay. Just like I can't whip out my c0ck, aim it at a chick across the room, shout "Go! Go! Gadget Go!" and expect to get nailed with anything but a lawsuit....

[hung-le]

It's funny how one video that is clearly included in KF's example makes people scream and yell. That wasn't a purposeful arm break. It was accidental when moving into a 2-on-1 to complete a throw.

If you have a video if a guy in a full contact match actually executing a technique which has a primary purpose of breaking an arm, then I'd be happy to see it. Until then, I agree with KF.

I agree....


IMO.... KF main argument is not that they don’t work if set….(of course they do…)

But they (standing arm bars etc..) are highly unlikely to get applied in a realistic setting against a skilled opponent. (same thing could be said about trapping limbs also)

How can this be argued?


However....IMO, To say a standing arm bar don't work would be saying that a submission doesn’t work? Do not submission guys set locks and bars one after another? Isn’t it if you slip out of one it lands you in another? Are submissions not used as threats and attacks to set up the opponent? In my day.. standing arm bars, throws and sweeps were used in conjuction with strikes and kicks to institute that same effect.


I’ve certainly applied standing arm bars in sparring (no breaks or dislocating of joints) against what I would call skilled opponents. (They knew standing arm bars were in my repertoire)

But I always had to initiate something(s) first within my skill set.

The higher the skilled opponent, the more you will have to work other attacks and defenses into the mix…

That goes for applying any technique not just a standing arm bar.

[Fu-Pow]

It is irresponsible to suggest that the purpose of variation, genetic change, and natural selection is to benefit the individual...this argument was done away with early last century...if a mutation does not benefit the individual in a way that benefits the group, the species will die out, and every species exists to an extent to reproduce and carry on the life of the species.

Its been a while since I've read the selfish gene but I'm pretty sure he never contended that at all. His point is that the basic unit of biology, the gene, is selfish. It's only purpose is propagating itself. If I recall there are several game theory models that he presents where sometimes propagation is benefitted by an individual organism's selfishness and sometimes by altruism but eventually the "system" reaches some sort of equilibrium.

The individual is only really given a full appreciation under cultural ideologies and those vary across the span of the human species from idol worship of individuals, to selfless agrandizment and group mentalities where individual benefit is abhorred and social custom dictates the social good.

Thus, I see Dawkins very much wrapped up and clouded by a cultural ideology that he is using to benefit his argument and skew his science. Without a doubt, biology plays a part in human cultural expression and diversity, but it does not determine nor does it dictate those expressions and ways of life.

Biology is a driving force but manifests itself differently in different cultures. Built "on top" of genes are "memes" or ideas. When you have a critical mass of memes you have a culture. However, memes must not violate the propagation of genes or you won't have memes anymore. In other words, you can have genes without memes (which is true of most of the living world) but not vice versa.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Oh yeah...well my Quantum Physics could kick the crap out of your lamebrain Biology any day!!!!


Bring it on Darwin-Boy!!!!!


Just kiddin'.....

[Knifefighter]

But if you're talking about simple hyperextensions---it's not that hard, and it will keep someone from using that arm for quite a while.

Hyperextensions are easier than breaks, but they are both hard to get on a standing, resisting opponent. Like breaks, hyperextensions are mostly accidental. when standing.

[Knifefighter]

It's funny how one video that is clearly included in KF's example makes people scream and yell. That wasn't a purposeful arm break. It was accidental when moving into a 2-on-1 to complete a throw.

Exactly... of course most of these people probably have no idea what a 2-on-1 is and that it is pretty much the real world application of what really happens when you get into the position to do a "standing arm bar" and that it almost always leads to a control position or takedown setup. Any break or hyperextension that occurs from there is accidental.